Privatizing Foreign Aid

by Harry Valentine

The horrific events which occurred on September 11, 2001 may lead to martial law in the USA, enforced as a means to ensuring public safety. The statists all seem to agree that capitalism and the American way of life is what Islamic militants seek to destroy. The theory has a major shortfall, that being, there are capitalist skyscrapers in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taipei, Seoul, Tokyo, Brussels, Melbourne, Paris and none of them seem to be in  any danger of anti-capitalistic terrorist attacks any time soon.

Shortly after news of the World Trade Center tragedy reached the Middle East, Palestinians were reported to have been dancing on the streets, in celebration of the attack on America. Anger toward the USA and its foreign policy seems quite high throughout that region. The sanctions the USA had imposed on India, Iraq and Pakistan have evidently caused some hardship for the citizens of those lands. Islam is one of the main religions in  these three countries, as it is in the Middle East and in most of Central Asia. Some 1.2-million Iraqi babies are believed to have died as a result of US sanctions.              

Many visitors to this website are probably aware of comments made by the US Ambassador to the UN, during a May 12, 1996 interview with Leslie Stahl of the CBS 60-minutes program. When asked about the morality of sanctions leading to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi babies at that time, Mrs. Albright was quoted as answering that she thought that the price was worth it. Apparently, excerpts from the interview were seen on TV in the Middle East. Anger in the Middle East against US foreign policy is quite understandable and is compounded by the generous aid provided by the US to Israel.             

A laissez-faire approach in matters pertaining to taxation of Americans, can go far in alleviating the anger and resentment directed toward the USA, by citizens in many countries around the world. The laissez-faire tax would involve all tax revenues collected domestically, being used domestically. In other words, programs like foreign aid would be privatized, like private charities. Tax levels to US citizens could be reduced, so as to allow citizens to donate to the charity of their choice. Private foreign aid involves people helping people directly, instead of the government to government approach which now prevails. The latter spectacle is little more than an ego-stroking obscenity for a few high-ranking people, who are probably well aware that the money they give to the another nation was forcibly coerced from their own citizens.             

A system whereby private people in one nation trade directly with other private  people around the world, could enable people from very diverse backgrounds, culture  and religion to realize value from peaceful, person to person exchange. I personally have engaged in such trading, finding articles of interest at various websites. More often than not, the seller was located in a different nation to me. Consistently, after making contact by e-mail expressing my interest in an item they had for sale, a cordial interpersonal and economic exchange followed. There was a benefit for both buyer and seller in developing such a mutually cordial relationship, especially if there was the prospect future trading. In both the areas of trade as well as charity, direct contact between private citizens living in different nations fosters levels of mutual trust, understanding, acceptance and peaceful co-existence than pompous bureaucrats could achieve around a negotiating table.             

Eliminating government-to-government foreign aid charades may leave many a bureaucrat long-faced, at home and abroad. It would reduce, if not eliminate needless squandering of resources (Remember the thousands of pairs of shoes owned by Imelda Marcos, paid for by the US taxpayer). Repressive, oppressive, tyrannical and dictatorial political behavior which generous government-to-government foreign aid packages encouraged, could be curtailed if not eliminated. A despot in need of funds from the USA, would have to appeal directly to the US population at large and not to their government in Washington. It may be an embarrassment for the tyrant to do so, yet it could ensure that the recipient engages in more humane and civilized behavior toward their citizens.

Elimination of government-to-government foreign aid would greatly reduce the anger felt worldwide toward the USA. At least the citizens of the world would know that under a direct system of people helping people, the would all stand an equal chance of   pleading their cases to the US population. In a direct system of people helping people, international tensions could subside. The role of government would be to maintain polite and cordial relations with other governments, or doing constructive things like eliminating trade barriers. If a foreign government is in a crisis, the head of that government has the choice of solving their problem at home, or if the wish to appeal to aid from the USA, then they would have to make a direct appeal to the American people and not their government.             

Elimination of government-to-government foreign aid programs could create a more peaceful world order. Leaders of countries in need would have an incentive to protect their foreign guests as well as their own citizens. The role of the world bank could be curtailed, allowing more private citizens, charities and volunteer groups from the more developed nations to play a more significant role in developing the evolving economies. The theory of eliminating government-
to-government foreign aid is an idea which laissez-faire supporters need to explore further, since its benefits would greatly exceed its drawbacks.   

September 26, 2001